Transgender teens challenge Kansas law banning gender-affirming care for minors
Kansas's Senate Bill 63 prohibits health care providers from administering treatments such as puberty blockers, hormone therapy and surgeries to minors diagnosed with gender dysphoria, characterized by a severe psychological distress that stems from a mismatch between a person's gender identity and sex at birth.
The bill, passed by the state Legislature in January, includes exceptions for minors born with 'a medically verifiable disorder of sex development.' Health care providers who break the law, which also targets social transition, face civil penalties and may be stripped of their license.
The American Civil Liberties Union and the ACLU of Kansas filed Wednesday's challenge in Douglas County District Court pseudonymously on behalf of plaintiffs Lily Loe, 13, Ryan Roe, 16, and their mothers, Lisa Loe and Rebecca Roe.
The two children 'have been thriving since they started receiving puberty blockers and hormone therapy,' the lawsuit states, 'but now their trusted doctors in Kansas can no longer help them, and they are at risk of unimaginable suffering.'
For their parents, Senate Bill 63 'impermissibly infringes on the fundamental right to the care, custody, and control of their children,' the lawsuit says, 'by displacing their medical decision-making authority with a government mandate, even when they, their adolescent children, and medical providers are all aligned.'
Republican state Attorney General Kris Kobach, who is named in the lawsuit, did not immediately return a request for comment.
Democratic Gov. Laura Kelly vetoed the bill in February for the third time in as many years, though her veto ultimately did not stand.
'It is disappointing that the Legislature continues to push for government interference in Kansans' private medical decisions instead of focusing on issues that improve all Kansans' lives,' Kelly said in a statement at the time. 'Infringing on parental rights is not appropriate, nor is it a Kansas value. As I've said before, it is not the job of politicians to stand between a parent and a child who needs medical care of any kind.'
The state's Republican-led Legislature overrode Kelly's veto the following week. Kansas Senate President Ty Masterson (R) and House Speaker Dan Hawkins (R) said they voted to override the governor's action 'in honor of the children Governor Kelly failed to protect with her repeated vetoes of this sensible legislation.'
The ACLU and the ACLU of Kansas are seeking an injunction to block enforcement of the law while the case moves forward.
'Our clients and every Kansan should have the freedom to make their own private medical decisions and consult with their doctors without the intrusion of Kansas politicians,' said D.C. Hiegert, civil liberties legal fellow for the ACLU of Kansas.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Yahoo
20 minutes ago
- Yahoo
James Carville Gives Fox News Viewers An Uncomfortable Reminder About Jeffrey Epstein
Longtime Democratic strategist James Carville on Thursday reminded Fox News viewers of a name that's rarely heard on the right-wing network: Jeffrey Epstein, the late convicted sex offender who was once close with President Donald Trump. Fox News host Jesse Watters asked Carville if Democrats would consider Hunter Biden, son of former President Joe Biden, as a possible presidential candidate. 'You know, everybody in the world is talking about Epstein, and Fox is still talking about Biden's memory,' Carville said. 'That's so long ago I can't even remember it.' 'Well, do you want to talk about Epstein?' Watters asked. 'I don't mind talking about Epstein,' said Carville. Carville's reminder comes as a new report found that Fox News has indeed shied away from Epstein coverage ― just as Trump has asked. The report by Media Matters for America finds that on Monday, for example, Fox News mentioned former President Barack Obama 117 times and Epstein just twice. Carville and Watters resumed talking about the Bidens but returned to Epstein later in the segment. 'I wasn't even going to bring Epstein up,' Watters said. 'But because you did, do you, James Carville, a Clinton guy, think that the Democrats should be begging for the release of the Epstein files?' Like Trump, former President Bill Clinton was also once close with Epstein, who was convicted of sex crimes in 2008. He was arrested again in 2019 and died in custody later that year, apparently of suicide, while awaiting trial on allegations of trafficking underage girls and other charges. Carville said he didn't know what was in the files. 'I suspect that they'll come out. I don't know what they are, but the story is not going away,' he said. 'That's pretty clear. It's just not going anywhere.' Trump has been facing new questions over his ties to Epstein after the Justice Department said it would not release any new material related to the case despite Trump's promises to do so. When asked about the case, Trump has deflected and complained about Obama instead. See the full segment below:
Fox News
22 minutes ago
- Fox News
What James Carville doesn't get about voter priorities
Writing in the New York Times on Monday, longtime Democratic political strategist James Carville outlined a compelling message for Democrats to unite around ahead of the 2026 midterms. Carville urged Democrats to delay the "civil war" that will eventually erupt between the party's moderate and progressive wings, and to coalesce around a single "oppositional message" focused entirely on repealing President Donald Trump's agenda. With all due respect to Mr. Carville, his myopic focus on a strategy of resisting Trump above all else is simply too narrow to be truly effective. Put another way, a Democratic agenda built entirely around repealing the Republican agenda may be enough for 2026, but it falls far short of what Democrats must do if they hope to take back the White House in 2028. Indeed, nowhere in the Times piece is any description of actual policies that Democrats should advance as an alternative to what Republicans are offering, either next year or in three years. There are no calls for an entirely new economic agenda, one that replaces Democrats' tendency for profligate spending with a more fiscally conservative plan focused on managing the debt while also protecting the social safety net. In many ways, Democrats today should look to former President Bill Clinton, who was able to reduce the debt, leave a budget surplus and still protect vital social programs. Moreover, the word "immigration" is not even mentioned. This comes despite 2024 election polling showing that immigration was a top issue for voters, and exit polls showing voters trusted Trump over former Vice President Kamala Harris by a 16-point margin (52% to 36%), per Fox News. To that end, if Democrats hope to take back more than just one chamber of Congress, the party needs an agenda that prioritizes securing the border, combined with a pathway to citizenship for legal migrants and Dreamers. And, while I do agree with Mr. Carville that the midterms will be decided based on kitchen table issues rather than foreign policy, that does not mean Democrats can afford to ignore this issue. As a party, Democrats must advance an agenda that positively asserts democratic values at home and abroad. This entails rejecting the belief of the far left – and increasingly the far right – that any use of American power is inherently bad. To be sure, formulating an entirely new Democratic agenda takes time. And it will require the emergence of moderate candidates at a time when Zohran Mamdani's win in New York City has energized the progressive wing of the party. Nevertheless, as the 2024 election made clear, Democrats cannot afford to run from the center toward the far left. What the party needs is a candidate who can win, not one chosen because they passed progressives' ideological purity test. Interestingly, Carville cites former President Clinton as a figure who emerged as Democrats' "savior" in 1992. But Clinton was able to do so because, at a time when the party was moving further to the left, Clinton dragged the party toward the middle on the economy and crime. Finally, the crux of Carville's message – "we demand a repeal" of Trump's agenda – overlooks the core factor behind who Americans cast a vote for. Voters choose candidates who have plans and policies that will improve their lives. Slogans, no matter how catchy, may work for the midterms, but if Democrats then fail to deliver actual change between 2026 and 2028, its unlikely voters will trust them. Quite simply, voters want a strong economy, safe streets, a government that is not excessively bloated and secure borders, not candidates whose only agenda is resisting the president. Now, this is not to say that the agenda outlined by Carville will not be successful next year – it very well may. Rather, it is to point out that even if it helps Democrats reclaim the House of Representatives, it will not be enough to take back the White House in 2028. For that, the party needs to advance its own agenda, one that addresses the above issues and actually provides a real, viable alternative to the Trump-GOP agenda.
New York Times
22 minutes ago
- New York Times
Trump, Obama and the Question of Treason
President Trump believes that President Barack Obama committed treason, a crime that may be punishable by death. Seeking a distraction from his current political travails, Mr. Trump is attempting to relitigate the nearly decade-old controversy over Russian involvement in the 2016 election. Mr. Trump is wrong on the facts and the law, and his sensational allegation serves only to demonstrate how completely he has degraded contemporary political discourse. Mr. Trump denounced Mr. Obama after Tulsi Gabbard, the director of national intelligence, asked the Justice Department to investigate whether intelligence officials in the Obama administration faked evidence of Russian efforts to influence the 2016 election. When the question of who should be targeted in the investigation was posed at an Oval Office press availability, Mr. Trump said: 'It would be President Obama. He started it. … This was treason. This was every word you can think of. They tried to steal the election. They tried to obfuscate the election. They did things that nobody's ever even imagined, even in other countries.' Mr. Trump also mentioned former President Joe Biden, former F.B.I. Director James Comey, the former director of national intelligence James Clapper and former C.I.A. Director John Brennan as other possible defendants. President Trump's history of intemperate remarks has earned him a perverse kind of immunity; the more outrageous his statement, the faster it is often dismissed. But Mr. Trump doesn't deserve this bloviator's privilege. He's not just the president, but, more to the point, he's the overseer of an unusually compliant Justice Department, and his offhand condemnation of his predecessor is as significant as it is chilling. Indeed, Mr. Trump made sure that the investigation of purported treason swiftly took on a life of its own. Attorney General Pam Bondi announced that a Justice Department 'strike force' would investigate the allegations against Mr. Obama and the others, and a pair of Republican senators, Lindsey Graham and John Cornyn, have called for the appointment of a special counsel to lead the inquiry. Treason is the only crime defined in the Constitution, and it's set out there, in relevant part, as giving 'aid and comfort' to our enemies. Regurgitating a claim that Mr. Trump and his allies have made for years, Ms. Gabbard said that President Obama, after Hillary Clinton was defeated by President Trump in the 2016 election, 'directed the creation of an intelligence community assessment that they knew was false.' Want all of The Times? Subscribe.
